URBAN LAND DEVELOPERS AND THE ORIGINS

OF ZONING LAWS: THE CASE OF BERKELEY

Marc A. Weiss

Introduction
In the following paper I present an analysis of the origins of
zoning laws and a case stody of the beginning of zoning in
Berkeley, California. The panicular focus of the anicle is on the
role of large-scale land subdividers, or ucommunity builders", and
on their economic and political activities both as entrepreneurs
and as memhers of local real estate hoards. The case of Berkeley
demonstrates the key actions of one prominent community
builder, Duncan McDuffie, as a promoter of local planning and
zoning to facilitate the development and marketing of high-income
residential sobdivisions. The case illustrates both the contribution
of zoning as an innovation in land planning and regulation, as
well as some of its social implications as practiced in tbe 19105
and L920s. 1
The Role of tbe Community Builders
Within the local real estate boards there existed a special brand
of broker who generally was the most imponant person in
advocating the adoption of land-use planning. These were the
largest residential subdividers, who developed sizable tracts of
land with modern landscaping and improvements, mostly for lhc
higher-incnme market. In addition to installing numerous
subdivision improvements, many of these subdividers also
engaged in homebuilding on at least a ponion of the tract.
Broker-subdividers could be involved with subdivisions in one of
four ways: 1) to own, develop, and sell lots; 2) to develop the
subdivisinn and sell lots under contract witb a separate owner; 3)
to develop a subdivision and hire a separate broker to sell lots;
and 4) to sell lots for a separate owner and subdivider. Most
brokers who specialized in subdivision sales also eagaged in
subdivision development, eitber on their own account or for
invcstor~licnls.

The broker-sobdividers who specialized in subdivision

developmell/ were the most planning-oriented of the realtors.
They were the actual community builders. As one of them stated:
"Fundamentally the subdivider is the manufacturer in the field of
real estate practice.,,2 Through their experience with the need to
plan for the financing, pbysical development, and physical and
legaL control through deed restrictions of large parcels of land for
long periods of time until all tbe lots were sold, community

7
Berkeley Planning Journal
builders aequired an early appreciation of the potential for public
regulation and planning to rationaliLe priva~e costs, e~h.ance sales
prices, and stabilize loog-term values. A pnv~te subdlVlder could
at best only eonlrol the land his or her firm directly owned or was
under contract to develop; but the government, lhrough its police
power, its power of eminent domain, and its taxing and spending
authorily, could exercise a much greater. degree of control.
Community builders understood that public control could be
privately influenced through active political mobilization and
representation by real estate Irade associations, and lhey orgaDlzed
themselves to exert a great deal of influence over planning issues
both within realty boards and within government.
The rise of the community huilders was accomplished and
facilitated by a host of institutional changes within the real estale
industry after 1900, including the simultaneous growth. of
institutional mortgage Finance, title insurance and trust co~pam~,
and transportation and utility services. The scale of resIdential
development, particularly during the 1920s, was rapidly becoming
larger, more institutionalized, and more economically integrated.
The community builders' central role in this process of secular
change accounts for their lead position as lobbyists for urban
land-use planning. 3
Community Builders And Zoning
In 1947 tbe Executive Director of the National Association of
Real Estate Boards (NAREB) slatcd: "We helped think up the idea
of city zoning ordinances thiny years ago. Their purpose was to
protect good residence neighborhoods from trade uses that would
destroy values."4 For community builders and realtors who
specialized in developing and selling lots and houses to a relatively
high-income market, protection was indeed thc primary
motivation for zoning. Through the usc of povate deed
restrictions residential subdividers had already markeHested the
value of la,;d-use regulations and found them to be most desirable.
Residence districts that restricted and segregaled land uses and
building types had by 1914 already proven their attractiveness to
potential buyers. Builders, lenders, insurers, and consumers ~ere
all pleased with the sense of stability and predIctabIlity prOVIded
by this new privately-controlled arrangement. 5
Private deed restrictions at that time were both flawed and
inadequate, however, for seven reasons: I) Tbey were difficult to
establish once land was subdivided and sold to dlvers.e. owners.
TllUs, they could only be easily applied to new subdlVl~lOns. 2)
They were often difficult to enforce through the clv,l courts.
Propeny owners could not depend on their future clfcetiveness
with any cenainty. 3) They generally were only conSidered to be
legally enforceable for a limitcd period of years, at whIch POlOt the
8 9
Urban Land Developers. Weiss
restflchons would completely expire and the area would be
officially unprotected. 4) They were inflexible. Once written into
the original dceds, they were extremely difficult to change, evcn
where new and unforeseen conditions clearly warranted certam
modifications. 5) They only applied 10 whatever size parcel of
land could be controlled by a single owner or subdivider. All land
surrounding a restricted subdivision could remain unrestricted,
subjecting the subdivision's border areas to the threat of
encirclement hy "undesirable" uses. 6) Even whcre deed
re'trictions were applicd to a number of tracts. each subdivider
used a differenl standard, leaving a complete lack of uniformily
betwcen each private effon. 7) In addition to the lack nf
coordination between privately-restricted and unrestricted land
u,e" restricted subdivisinns were not coordinated with public land
uses and futurc public land-use plans.
Community builders looked to public zoning to fiU the gaps left
bv the inadequacies of private restrictions. They believed that
thelT ,"terests would be adequately represented in the public
planning process, enabling them 10 continue to exercise a .g~eat
deal of private control over development and sales competlllon.
The idea of protectiun in zoning. however, was not intended to be
universally applied. It was to be extended mainly to "good
residence neighborhoods," as the NAREB statement clearly
indicated.
Since good residence ncighborhoods werc the principal kind that
most community huilders were in the business of creatong, they
naturally were strong and early advocates for the IOning ~oncept.
"Good" in this ease meant the qualIty of landscape deSIgn and
improvements, and it also meant it was designed primarily for
higher income purchasers. Private restrictions. for example,
normallv included such provisions ax high minimum requIred
costs fnr hnme construction, and exclusion of all non-Caucasians
from occupancy. except as domestic servants. 6
In The Rise oj the Community Built/ers , descri?e the 'f>s
Angeles "Use of Propeny" survey and the realty board s campaIgn
agai""t the "overzoning" of ecnain use categones. Table I .and
similar surveys and dcbates across America's newly-zoned CItIes
during the J9205 and 1930s revealed that most of the povately-
owned land arca in large central cities was not wned for
protection, even when neigbborh~s were alr~adY .built-up with
many single-family houses. Mlddle-lOcome reSIdential areas were
generally £Oned for multiple dwellings, and all. maJ?r slreets were
loned for commercial use. Low-income reSidential areas were
usually zoned for either industrial or unrestricted use.. As Barbara
Flint noted in her case study: "The St. loUIS Clly. Plannmg
Commission felt lhat where property was developed WIth homes
of low value, even though they were single-family homes,
Berkeley Planning Journal
builders aequired an early appreciation of the potential for public
regulation and planning to rationaliLe priva~e costs, e~h.ance sales
prices, and stabilize loog-term values. A pnv~te subdlVlder could
at best only eonlrol the land his or her firm directly owned or was
under contract to develop; but the government, lhrough its police
power, its power of eminent domain, and its taxing and spending
authorily, could exercise a much greater. degree of control.
Community builders understood that public control could be
privately influenced through active political mobilization and
representation by real estate Irade associations, and lhey orgaDlzed
themselves to exert a great deal of influence over planning issues
both within realty boards and within government.
The rise of the community huilders was accomplished and
facilitated by a host of institutional changes within the real estale
industry after 1900, including the simultaneous growth. of
institutional mortgage Finance, title insurance and trust co~pam~,
and transportation and utility services. The scale of resIdential
development, particularly during the 1920s, was rapidly becoming
larger, more institutionalized, and more economically integrated.
The community builders' central role in this process of secular
change accounts for their lead position as lobbyists for urban
land-use planning. 3
Community Builders And Zoning
In 1947 tbe Executive Director of the National Association of
Real Estate Boards (NAREB) slatcd: "We helped think up the idea
of city zoning ordinances thiny years ago. Their purpose was to
protect good residence neighborhoods from trade uses that would
destroy values."4 For community builders and realtors who
specialized in developing and selling lots and houses to a relatively
high-income market, protection was indeed thc primary
motivation for zoning. Through the usc of povate deed
restrictions residential subdividers had already markeHested the
value of la,;d-use regulations and found them to be most desirable.
Residence districts that restricted and segregaled land uses and
building types had by 1914 already proven their attractiveness to
potential buyers. Builders, lenders, insurers, and consumers ~ere
all pleased with the sense of stability and predIctabIlity prOVIded
by this new privately-controlled arrangement. 5
Private deed restrictions at that time were both flawed and
inadequate, however, for seven reasons: I) Tbey were difficult to
establish once land was subdivided and sold to dlvers.e. owners.
TllUs, they could only be easily applied to new subdlVl~lOns. 2)
They were often difficult to enforce through the clv,l courts.
Propeny owners could not depend on their future clfcetiveness
with any cenainty. 3) They generally were only conSidered to be
legally enforceable for a limitcd period of years, at whIch POlOt the
8 9
Urban Land Developers. Weiss
restflchons would completely expire and the area would be
officially unprotected. 4) They were inflexible. Once written into
the original dceds, they were extremely difficult to change, evcn
where new and unforeseen conditions clearly warranted certam
modifications. 5) They only applied 10 whatever size parcel of
land could be controlled by a single owner or subdivider. All land
surrounding a restricted subdivision could remain unrestricted,
subjecting the subdivision's border areas to the threat of
encirclement hy "undesirable" uses. 6) Even whcre deed
re'trictions were applicd to a number of tracts. each subdivider
used a differenl standard, leaving a complete lack of uniformily
betwcen each private effon. 7) In addition to the lack nf
coordination between privately-restricted and unrestricted land
u,e" restricted subdivisinns were not coordinated with public land
uses and futurc public land-use plans.
Community builders looked to public zoning to fiU the gaps left
bv the inadequacies of private restrictions. They believed that
thelT ,"terests would be adequately represented in the public
planning process, enabling them 10 continue to exercise a .g~eat
deal of private control over development and sales competlllon.
The idea of protectiun in zoning. however, was not intended to be
universally applied. It was to be extended mainly to "good
residence neighborhoods," as the NAREB statement clearly
indicated.
Since good residence ncighborhoods werc the principal kind that
most community huilders were in the business of creatong, they
naturally were strong and early advocates for the IOning ~oncept.
"Good" in this ease meant the qualIty of landscape deSIgn and
improvements, and it also meant it was designed primarily for
higher income purchasers. Private restrictions. for example,
normallv included such provisions ax high minimum requIred
costs fnr hnme construction, and exclusion of all non-Caucasians
from occupancy. except as domestic servants. 6
In The Rise oj the Community Built/ers , descri?e the 'f>s
Angeles "Use of Propeny" survey and the realty board s campaIgn
agai""t the "overzoning" of ecnain use categones. Table I .and
similar surveys and dcbates across America's newly-zoned CItIes
during the J9205 and 1930s revealed that most of the povately-
owned land arca in large central cities was not wned for
protection, even when neigbborh~s were alr~adY .built-up with
many single-family houses. Mlddle-lOcome reSIdential areas were
generally £Oned for multiple dwellings, and all. maJ?r slreets were
loned for commercial use. Low-income reSidential areas were
usually zoned for either industrial or unrestricted use.. As Barbara
Flint noted in her case study: "The St. loUIS Clly. Plannmg
Commission felt lhat where property was developed WIth homes
of low value, even though they were single-family homes,
 Urban Land Developers, Weiss

TABLE I
multiple-family houses and other uses did not impair the value of
these areas.,,7
ACTUAL USES OF PROPr.RTY COMPARED TO USES
DESIGNATED BY ZONING LAW, CHICAGO. 1923 In all different cases and classes of property use, zoning was
normally devoted to stimulating more or less compatible forms of
high-value development. Where residential areas were planned for
Use Pre..<ent
or built-up with expensive single-family houses, protection to
Under Zone Plan
facilitate or preserve this particular form of high property values
Square Miles Percentage Square Mll~!!: Percentage was considered to be a worthwhile objective; in middle-income
residential areas, promotion of higher density, higher value multi-
Singk-family
family apartment buildings, hotels, stores, offices, and other
Dwellings 23.75 11.7 5.91 2.9
residential and commercial uses was combined with the necessary
u
pratertion of lhese uses from industrial Hnuisance encroacbment.
rwo-famlly In low-income residential areas, promotion of industrial uses was
Dwellings 15.66 7.7 38.55 19.1 the primary objective, with absolutely no protection of the local
Multiple-ramil) ,",orking-class population. Indeed, some of the more sophisticated
DwelliD~ 9.19 4.8 26.00 13.1 zoning laws, such as Berkeley's, actually created exclusive
industrial use districts to protect factory owners from complaints
Total. Dwelling and lawsuits by low-income residential neighbors.
An:a 24.2 35.1
Community builders frequently came into conflict with the
Commercial Areas 9.87 4.9 28.24 14.0 majority of realty agents over zoning, with the community
Manufacturing Arcus 25.91 12.9 48.64 24.1
builders generally on the side of imposing greater and more
uniform restrictions. Most small realty operators wanted to
S~illl 4.95 2.4 promote the highest speeulati ve values and fastest possible
Strccl! and Alleys
lurnover for each individual property they owned or represented
46.60 13.3 48.60 lJ.3 as agents, irrespective of neighborhood-wide or market-wide
Parks and Playgrounds 7.06 1.5 7.06 3.5 impacts. With the collapse of the 1920s urban real estate boom
and the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
Water and Vucunt 5K.OI 28.8 mongage insurance program in the 19305, the three-class model of
Tota) uf All Uses 201.00 100.0
zoning began to change. Beginning in 1935, protection for single-
2U 1.00 100.0
family residences was finally extended to middle-income, though
still not low-income, residenlial neighborhoods. 8 For the period
of the 1920s and early 1930s, however, community builders relied
on tightly-drawn and vigilantly-enforccd deed restrictions,
Source: Barbam J. Aiot. Zomng and Rpfidemial St.'gregation. A ownership of very large land parcels with secure developed or
SOCial und Phrsical flif/nrl!, 19JQ../940. Unpublished protected borders (such as rivers or parklands), and the
Ph.D. dissertatIOn, Department of History, University of establishment of independent incorporated suburban government
Chicago. 1977, page 205.
enclaves as their three main lines of defense against the threat of
"curbstone" loning.
Berkeley
The city of Berkeley in 1900, with a population of 13,214, was
primarily a high-income residential suburb of San Francisco.
Professionals, managers, and owners of San Francisco businesses
commuted to Oakland by electric transit and then across the Bay
to San Francisco by ferry boat. Berkeley's most important
onslitution was the University of California, and it was also the
home of the California School for the Deaf and Blind. South of

10 11
 Urban Land Developers, Weiss

TABLE I
multiple-family houses and other uses did not impair the value of
these areas.,,7
ACTUAL USES OF PROPr.RTY COMPARED TO USES
DESIGNATED BY ZONING LAW, CHICAGO. 1923 In all different cases and classes of property use, zoning was
normally devoted to stimulating more or less compatible forms of
high-value development. Where residential areas were planned for
Use Pre..<ent
or built-up with expensive single-family houses, protection to
Under Zone Plan
facilitate or preserve this particular form of high property values
Square Miles Percentage Square Mll~!!: Percentage was considered to be a worthwhile objective; in middle-income
residential areas, promotion of higher density, higher value multi-
Singk-family
family apartment buildings, hotels, stores, offices, and other
Dwellings 23.75 11.7 5.91 2.9
residential and commercial uses was combined with the necessary
u
pratertion of lhese uses from industrial Hnuisance encroacbment.
rwo-famlly In low-income residential areas, promotion of industrial uses was
Dwellings 15.66 7.7 38.55 19.1 the primary objective, with absolutely no protection of the local
Multiple-ramil) ,",orking-class population. Indeed, some of the more sophisticated
DwelliD~ 9.19 4.8 26.00 13.1 zoning laws, such as Berkeley's, actually created exclusive
industrial use districts to protect factory owners from complaints
Total. Dwelling and lawsuits by low-income residential neighbors.
An:a 24.2 35.1
Community builders frequently came into conflict with the
Commercial Areas 9.87 4.9 28.24 14.0 majority of realty agents over zoning, with the community
Manufacturing Arcus 25.91 12.9 48.64 24.1
builders generally on the side of imposing greater and more
uniform restrictions. Most small realty operators wanted to
S~illl 4.95 2.4 promote the highest speeulati ve values and fastest possible
Strccl! and Alleys
lurnover for each individual property they owned or represented
46.60 13.3 48.60 lJ.3 as agents, irrespective of neighborhood-wide or market-wide
Parks and Playgrounds 7.06 1.5 7.06 3.5 impacts. With the collapse of the 1920s urban real estate boom
and the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
Water and Vucunt 5K.OI 28.8 mongage insurance program in the 19305, the three-class model of
Tota) uf All Uses 201.00 100.0
zoning began to change. Beginning in 1935, protection for single-
2U 1.00 100.0
family residences was finally extended to middle-income, though
still not low-income, residenlial neighborhoods. 8 For the period
of the 1920s and early 1930s, however, community builders relied
on tightly-drawn and vigilantly-enforccd deed restrictions,
Source: Barbam J. Aiot. Zomng and Rpfidemial St.'gregation. A ownership of very large land parcels with secure developed or
SOCial und Phrsical flif/nrl!, 19JQ../940. Unpublished protected borders (such as rivers or parklands), and the
Ph.D. dissertatIOn, Department of History, University of establishment of independent incorporated suburban government
Chicago. 1977, page 205.
enclaves as their three main lines of defense against the threat of
"curbstone" loning.
Berkeley
The city of Berkeley in 1900, with a population of 13,214, was
primarily a high-income residential suburb of San Francisco.
Professionals, managers, and owners of San Francisco businesses
commuted to Oakland by electric transit and then across the Bay
to San Francisco by ferry boat. Berkeley's most important
onslitution was the University of California, and it was also the
home of the California School for the Deaf and Blind. South of

10 11
Berkeley PLanninx Juurnal
the university campus and in the center of town there was a
modest amount of retail activity. The western end of Berkeley,
near the Bay and the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe rail lines, was
the former town of Oceanview, an industrial settlement consisting
of factories, warehouses, and small homes and DaIs inhabited by
working-dass families. 9
Berkeley's modest but steady growth as a suburban enclave was
suddenly jolted in 1906 when San Francisco was rocked by an
earthquake and fire that destroyed most of Ihe ccnlral portion of
California's largest city. Survivors of the disaster rushed across
the Bay to safer ground, and Berkeley experienced a major inOux
of temporary and permanent residences and new commercial
enterprise. Warren Cheney, one of Berkeley's largest commercial
realtors and head of its Chamber of Commerce, reported: "It is
not Christian to seek advantage in another's misfonune, but there
is nothing to be ashamed of in profiting by such misfonune if it
comes unsoughl."l0 Cheney's prophecy thaI Berkcley would
replace San Francisco as the commercial center of the Bay
(Oakland was also competing for this honor) turned oul 10 be
greatly mistaken. The husine"es that set up temporary
headquarters on Berkeley's Shattuck Avenue in 1906 soon
relocated back 10 their newly rebuilt downtown Sao Francisco
sites. But residential growth did undergo a major and lasting
spurt. Berkeley's population doubled in 1906·7, and by the end of
the decade the city boasted a population of 40,434, a great deal of
which was high-income, panicularly in the northern and eastern
areas of the city. In 1916, according to one source, 90 percent of
the existing structures in Berkeley were single-family houses. I I
Excellent transit access to San Francisco, the presence of the
university, and a view of the Golden Gate proved an irresistible
induccmcnl for the developers of firsl-c1ass residcnlial
subdivisions on Berkeley's high ground. One of the city's most
dislinguished residents was Duncan McDuffie, president of
Mason-McDuffie, northern California's largest real estate
brokerage and development corporation. Duncan McDuffie was
one of California's pioneering community builders, a professional
realtor and subdivider of well-designed and expensive residence
tracts complete with tightly-drawn deed restrictions, the most
famous of which was the 1912 San Francisco development, SI.
Francis Wood. 12 Mason-McDullic developed three major deed-
restricted subdivisions in Berkeley designed primarily for single-
family homes. The first of these subdivisions, lhe Claremonl
district. included a very grand hotel and Duncan McDuffie's own
famous house and garden. ll
Duncan McDuffie, in addition to being a substantial realtor, was
also very acti ve in polilics. At the slatc levcl. he worked closely
with Mason-McDuffie's vice-president, California Assembly
J2
Urban Land Developers. Weiss
Speaker c.c. Young, to lobby the California legislature for a
tree-planting enabling act to help beautify cities, and for more
state parks. (He was later appointed by Governor C.c. Young to
be Chairman of the California Stale Park Commission.)14 As a
leader of the Berkeley Realty Board, Duncan McDuffie was the
prime mover behind attempts to create a city planning
commission and to institute city zoning in Berkeley. I5
Starting in 1914, Duncan McDuffie initiated and directed the
effons of the private Berkeley City Club to establish a City
Planning Committee and raise the money to pay one-fourth of the
cost of bringing German architect Werner Hegemann to the East
Bay to produce a joint infrastruclure and beautification plan for
Berkeley and Oakland l6 McDuffie then played Ihe main role in
inducing the Berkeley City Council to establish a Civic Art
Commission to pursue city planning activities in 1915. Berkeley's
mayor appointed McDuffie as president of the Civic Art
Commission. Other members ineluded representatives from the
Berkeley Manufaclurcr's Association and the Berkeley Chamber of
Commerce, plus two University of California professors. In
establishing a pattern that was 10 become nearly universal in the
succeeding decade, "The Civic Art Commission soon arrived at
the conclusion that the matter of zoning was of primary
importance and its first efforts were therefore directed toward the
passage of a zoning ordinance.',17
Duncan McDuffie's perspective on city planning and zoning
derived direclly from his experience in subdividing single-family
residence tracts. In an address 10 the City Club in 1916, he
emphasized that experience: 'Through the use of proper
restrielions, a well-designed streel plan and suitable
improvements, it is possible absolutely to determine in advance
the developmenl and character of an entire residence tract,"IS and
thus avoid "the evils of uncontrolled development."19 [n his
view, the purpose of the Civic Art Commission was to utilize the
precedent of private restrictions to create public zoning: "[n
Berkeley the value of protective restrictions has been amply
demonstrated by their usc in private residence tracts. The
adoption of a district or zooe system by Berkeley will give
property outside of restricted sections that protection now enjoyed
by a few districts alone and will prevent deterioration and assist in
stabilizing valucs."20 Berkeley's zone plan would not nnly be an
aid to the homeowner, but would also "protect the business
districts of the city against the competition created by scattering
stores through residence districts.',21 In addition, it would
"protect the manufacturer by giving him a district on the water-
front, convenient to both rail and water transportation, in which
he will be free from attack"n by "unreasonable neighbors."21
13
Berkeley PLanninx Juurnal
the university campus and in the center of town there was a
modest amount of retail activity. The western end of Berkeley,
near the Bay and the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe rail lines, was
the former town of Oceanview, an industrial settlement consisting
of factories, warehouses, and small homes and DaIs inhabited by
working-dass families. 9
Berkeley's modest but steady growth as a suburban enclave was
suddenly jolted in 1906 when San Francisco was rocked by an
earthquake and fire that destroyed most of Ihe ccnlral portion of
California's largest city. Survivors of the disaster rushed across
the Bay to safer ground, and Berkeley experienced a major inOux
of temporary and permanent residences and new commercial
enterprise. Warren Cheney, one of Berkeley's largest commercial
realtors and head of its Chamber of Commerce, reported: "It is
not Christian to seek advantage in another's misfonune, but there
is nothing to be ashamed of in profiting by such misfonune if it
comes unsoughl."l0 Cheney's prophecy thaI Berkcley would
replace San Francisco as the commercial center of the Bay
(Oakland was also competing for this honor) turned oul 10 be
greatly mistaken. The husine"es that set up temporary
headquarters on Berkeley's Shattuck Avenue in 1906 soon
relocated back 10 their newly rebuilt downtown Sao Francisco
sites. But residential growth did undergo a major and lasting
spurt. Berkeley's population doubled in 1906·7, and by the end of
the decade the city boasted a population of 40,434, a great deal of
which was high-income, panicularly in the northern and eastern
areas of the city. In 1916, according to one source, 90 percent of
the existing structures in Berkeley were single-family houses. I I
Excellent transit access to San Francisco, the presence of the
university, and a view of the Golden Gate proved an irresistible
induccmcnl for the developers of firsl-c1ass residcnlial
subdivisions on Berkeley's high ground. One of the city's most
dislinguished residents was Duncan McDuffie, president of
Mason-McDuffie, northern California's largest real estate
brokerage and development corporation. Duncan McDuffie was
one of California's pioneering community builders, a professional
realtor and subdivider of well-designed and expensive residence
tracts complete with tightly-drawn deed restrictions, the most
famous of which was the 1912 San Francisco development, SI.
Francis Wood. 12 Mason-McDullic developed three major deed-
restricted subdivisions in Berkeley designed primarily for single-
family homes. The first of these subdivisions, lhe Claremonl
district. included a very grand hotel and Duncan McDuffie's own
famous house and garden. ll
Duncan McDuffie, in addition to being a substantial realtor, was
also very acti ve in polilics. At the slatc levcl. he worked closely
with Mason-McDuffie's vice-president, California Assembly
J2
Urban Land Developers. Weiss
Speaker c.c. Young, to lobby the California legislature for a
tree-planting enabling act to help beautify cities, and for more
state parks. (He was later appointed by Governor C.c. Young to
be Chairman of the California Stale Park Commission.)14 As a
leader of the Berkeley Realty Board, Duncan McDuffie was the
prime mover behind attempts to create a city planning
commission and to institute city zoning in Berkeley. I5
Starting in 1914, Duncan McDuffie initiated and directed the
effons of the private Berkeley City Club to establish a City
Planning Committee and raise the money to pay one-fourth of the
cost of bringing German architect Werner Hegemann to the East
Bay to produce a joint infrastruclure and beautification plan for
Berkeley and Oakland l6 McDuffie then played Ihe main role in
inducing the Berkeley City Council to establish a Civic Art
Commission to pursue city planning activities in 1915. Berkeley's
mayor appointed McDuffie as president of the Civic Art
Commission. Other members ineluded representatives from the
Berkeley Manufaclurcr's Association and the Berkeley Chamber of
Commerce, plus two University of California professors. In
establishing a pattern that was 10 become nearly universal in the
succeeding decade, "The Civic Art Commission soon arrived at
the conclusion that the matter of zoning was of primary
importance and its first efforts were therefore directed toward the
passage of a zoning ordinance.',17
Duncan McDuffie's perspective on city planning and zoning
derived direclly from his experience in subdividing single-family
residence tracts. In an address 10 the City Club in 1916, he
emphasized that experience: 'Through the use of proper
restrielions, a well-designed streel plan and suitable
improvements, it is possible absolutely to determine in advance
the developmenl and character of an entire residence tract,"IS and
thus avoid "the evils of uncontrolled development."19 [n his
view, the purpose of the Civic Art Commission was to utilize the
precedent of private restrictions to create public zoning: "[n
Berkeley the value of protective restrictions has been amply
demonstrated by their usc in private residence tracts. The
adoption of a district or zooe system by Berkeley will give
property outside of restricted sections that protection now enjoyed
by a few districts alone and will prevent deterioration and assist in
stabilizing valucs."20 Berkeley's zone plan would not nnly be an
aid to the homeowner, but would also "protect the business
districts of the city against the competition created by scattering
stores through residence districts.',21 In addition, it would
"protect the manufacturer by giving him a district on the water-
front, convenient to both rail and water transportation, in which
he will be free from attack"n by "unreasonable neighbors."21
13
Berkeley Planning Journal Urban Land Developers, Weiss

The Industnal dlstnct on the Berkeley waterfront, early 1900s, from whIch
Berkeley's zoning law sought to exclude residents.

The entram.1; to Claremont, Duncan McDuffie'! first deed·restrictive subdivision,

In Berkele.y.

Photographs (;ourtcsy of the Bancroft Ubrary Collection. Umvcntty of California. View of Nonhbrae SUbdiVISion m October 1914. In 1910, this property was 3 cow
ll<rkclcy. pasture.

14 15
Berkeley Planning Journal Urban Land Developers, Weiss

The Industnal dlstnct on the Berkeley waterfront, early 1900s, from whIch
Berkeley's zoning law sought to exclude residents.

The entram.1; to Claremont, Duncan McDuffie'! first deed·restrictive subdivision,

In Berkele.y.

Photographs (;ourtcsy of the Bancroft Ubrary Collection. Umvcntty of California. View of Nonhbrae SUbdiVISion m October 1914. In 1910, this property was 3 cow
ll<rkclcy. pasture.

14 15
Berkeley Planning Journal
The immediate concerns in Berkeley with regard to restricted
residence traelS were three-fold: I) some of the tracts' deed re-
strictions would soon be expiring. In fact, one of the most urgent
demands for wning came from single-family homeowners in
Elmwood Park, a neighborhood of tracts suhdivided between 1905
and 1910, each tract with five-year restrictions. When the
restrictions expired, several apartments and stores were buill in
the neighborhood, and most of the existing property owners were
anxious to stop this "invasion".24
2) Realty agents, lenders, title companies, builders, and home
and lot purchasers were concerned because deed restrictions were
often not legally enforceable, even if they were nominally still in
effect. Public zoning was seen as a solution to the problem of
relying exclusively on uncertain private litigation. As another
member of the Civil Art Commission stated;
If a man buys property wlthm a restncted tract and wishes to
devote it (Q uses other than those allowed, there IS nothing 10
prevent him from obtaining a bUlldmg permn from the city
to crect any type of building he desires. The only method of
prcVl:nting such violation iii; by tedious and costly legal pro-
ceedings instituted by a property owner in the restricted tract
at his own expense, immediately upon knowledge that a
violation is threatened. These occurrences arc so numemus
that a restriction running with the land is in many (,1iSCS a
nullity.25
3) Community builders like Duncan McDuffie were particularly
concerned because deed-restricted residence tracts could not
legally control the use of land au/side of their boundaries. Only
the local government through its police powers could perform such
a task. For example, while the Elmwood Park tract was not a
Mason-McDuffie subdivision, it touched the western border of the
restricted Claremont district, in which McDuffie resided. He was
concerned that in the absence of public zoning, Claremont could
soon be ringed by "incompatible" uses. McDuffie's report, as
president of the Civic Art Commission, recommended to the City
CounCIL that Elmwood Park be zoned for exclusive single-family
reSIdence use. He also stated that the Commission "sees no
rea~on why the property immediately east of Elmwood park,
whIch has been developed as residential property in much the
same manner as Elmwood Park, should not receive the benefits of
the regulation proposed."26 The second major residential area to
be classified as an exclusive single-family home district under
Berkeley's zoning law was Northbrae, one of Mason-McDuffie's
biggcst East Bay subdivisions. 27
Berkeley's City Council adopted its first districting nrdinance on
March 10, 1916, a full four months before ew York City's
landmark zoning law was passcd. 28 While Berkeley's ordinance
16
Urban LAnd Developers. Weiss
was quite npenly based on the 1908 Los Angelcs law and the
subsequent court decisions validating it, there were a number of
important differences in the two approaches. 29 First, Berkeley's
key innovation was to create a separate classi.fication for. single-
family residence districts. The Los Angeles res,dence d,stnclS dId
not dIfferentiate between single-family and other types of
residential usc. Berkeley, foreshadowing modern zoning practice,
had five different residential-usc districts in the 1916 ordinance.
Second, while the Los Angeles method was to pass a general law
that hlanketed the city's entire territory, Berkeley created a fine-
tuned law with eight different district classifications. However,
under the Berkeley law the entire city was not automatically to be
mned. Only wben at lcast 50 property owners or owners of 25
percent of the street frontage petitioned the City Council could a
specific geographic district be legally classified. Under .this
piecemeal voluntary approach, most areas of Berkeley remaIDed
totally unrestricted.
Third, the Berkeley law was not necessarily retroactive. Unlike
the Los Angeles law, in Berkeley tbe City Council could order a
non-conforming use to vacate a district, but it was not required to
do so. Again establishing a more modern standard, the Berkeley
law contained a provision that if a non-conforming use was de-
stroyed, altered, or voluntarily vacated at any future time, the new
use must conform to the district's Loning restrictions.
Fourth, in addition to an exclusive single-family residence
district classification, Berkeley zoning law also included a
cJa55ificiliion for imJuWiaJ "i~IIj~l~ fI9Jll which residences would
be excluded. This particular zoning innovation was unique and
did not become common U.S. practice until the 1950s. The
provision for exclusive industrial districts was at the specific
request of B.l. Bither, director of the Berkeley Manufacturers'
Association and a member of the Civic Art Commission. Other
industrialists and executives from the Southern Pacific and Santa
Fe Railroads made similar requests. 30 As Mr. Bither explained:
FactOries are often harassed by people who buiJd close to
them and then enter upon a course of annoyance and
complalDt until they are in some way pacified-when the
trouble IS apt to be renewed by some other similarly s;tuatt"d
reSidents.
In order thal factory buildings may be induced to locate in
Berkeley, thcy must be assured that they will be protected
against unfair treatment so long as they conform to the
municipal regulatlons.3 1
The issue that precipitated Bither's zoning proposal was the
inability of Standard Oil 10 find an industrial location in Berkeley
17
Berkeley Planning Journal
The immediate concerns in Berkeley with regard to restricted
residence traelS were three-fold: I) some of the tracts' deed re-
strictions would soon be expiring. In fact, one of the most urgent
demands for wning came from single-family homeowners in
Elmwood Park, a neighborhood of tracts suhdivided between 1905
and 1910, each tract with five-year restrictions. When the
restrictions expired, several apartments and stores were buill in
the neighborhood, and most of the existing property owners were
anxious to stop this "invasion".24
2) Realty agents, lenders, title companies, builders, and home
and lot purchasers were concerned because deed restrictions were
often not legally enforceable, even if they were nominally still in
effect. Public zoning was seen as a solution to the problem of
relying exclusively on uncertain private litigation. As another
member of the Civil Art Commission stated;
If a man buys property wlthm a restncted tract and wishes to
devote it (Q uses other than those allowed, there IS nothing 10
prevent him from obtaining a bUlldmg permn from the city
to crect any type of building he desires. The only method of
prcVl:nting such violation iii; by tedious and costly legal pro-
ceedings instituted by a property owner in the restricted tract
at his own expense, immediately upon knowledge that a
violation is threatened. These occurrences arc so numemus
that a restriction running with the land is in many (,1iSCS a
nullity.25
3) Community builders like Duncan McDuffie were particularly
concerned because deed-restricted residence tracts could not
legally control the use of land au/side of their boundaries. Only
the local government through its police powers could perform such
a task. For example, while the Elmwood Park tract was not a
Mason-McDuffie subdivision, it touched the western border of the
restricted Claremont district, in which McDuffie resided. He was
concerned that in the absence of public zoning, Claremont could
soon be ringed by "incompatible" uses. McDuffie's report, as
president of the Civic Art Commission, recommended to the City
CounCIL that Elmwood Park be zoned for exclusive single-family
reSIdence use. He also stated that the Commission "sees no
rea~on why the property immediately east of Elmwood park,
whIch has been developed as residential property in much the
same manner as Elmwood Park, should not receive the benefits of
the regulation proposed."26 The second major residential area to
be classified as an exclusive single-family home district under
Berkeley's zoning law was Northbrae, one of Mason-McDuffie's
biggcst East Bay subdivisions. 27
Berkeley's City Council adopted its first districting nrdinance on
March 10, 1916, a full four months before ew York City's
landmark zoning law was passcd. 28 While Berkeley's ordinance
16
Urban LAnd Developers. Weiss
was quite npenly based on the 1908 Los Angelcs law and the
subsequent court decisions validating it, there were a number of
important differences in the two approaches. 29 First, Berkeley's
key innovation was to create a separate classi.fication for. single-
family residence districts. The Los Angeles res,dence d,stnclS dId
not dIfferentiate between single-family and other types of
residential usc. Berkeley, foreshadowing modern zoning practice,
had five different residential-usc districts in the 1916 ordinance.
Second, while the Los Angeles method was to pass a general law
that hlanketed the city's entire territory, Berkeley created a fine-
tuned law with eight different district classifications. However,
under the Berkeley law the entire city was not automatically to be
mned. Only wben at lcast 50 property owners or owners of 25
percent of the street frontage petitioned the City Council could a
specific geographic district be legally classified. Under .this
piecemeal voluntary approach, most areas of Berkeley remaIDed
totally unrestricted.
Third, the Berkeley law was not necessarily retroactive. Unlike
the Los Angeles law, in Berkeley tbe City Council could order a
non-conforming use to vacate a district, but it was not required to
do so. Again establishing a more modern standard, the Berkeley
law contained a provision that if a non-conforming use was de-
stroyed, altered, or voluntarily vacated at any future time, the new
use must conform to the district's Loning restrictions.
Fourth, in addition to an exclusive single-family residence
district classification, Berkeley zoning law also included a
cJa55ificiliion for imJuWiaJ "i~IIj~l~ fI9Jll which residences would
be excluded. This particular zoning innovation was unique and
did not become common U.S. practice until the 1950s. The
provision for exclusive industrial districts was at the specific
request of B.l. Bither, director of the Berkeley Manufacturers'
Association and a member of the Civic Art Commission. Other
industrialists and executives from the Southern Pacific and Santa
Fe Railroads made similar requests. 30 As Mr. Bither explained:
FactOries are often harassed by people who buiJd close to
them and then enter upon a course of annoyance and
complalDt until they are in some way pacified-when the
trouble IS apt to be renewed by some other similarly s;tuatt"d
reSidents.
In order thal factory buildings may be induced to locate in
Berkeley, thcy must be assured that they will be protected
against unfair treatment so long as they conform to the
municipal regulatlons.3 1
The issue that precipitated Bither's zoning proposal was the
inability of Standard Oil 10 find an industrial location in Berkeley
17
Berkeley Planning Journal
without arousing great community Oppos'llon. Berkeley Mayor
Samuel C. Irving, who was also president of the Chamber of
Commerce and owner of a multinational manufacturinjl
corporation, was determined that the city's railroad and
waterfron' land should be developed for industrial purposes free
from protests and lawsuits by nearby working-class residents.
Under Berkeley's 1916 zoning law two different industrial district
classifications were created, one "in which only unobnoxious
factories will be allowed and another c1assif'eation in which
obnoxious as well as unobnoxious factories will be allowed,,32
Berkeley's zoning law was primarily designed to protect the
developers and owners of large and expensive homes on the east
side of the city, and the developers and owners of faelories and
railroad property on the west side. Requests for protective
restrictions that would benefit residents of "old and dilapidated"
houses in the west side industrial areas were rejccted by the
Berkeley City Council in hopes that "the residences within that
zone would gradually be abandoned, and the district would
become a purely manufacturing locality.,,]3 One of the earliest
petitions acted upon by the City Council created an industrial
district for Cutter Laboratories: "a new manufacturing plant
expecting to invest a large sum of money on buildings covering
about two acres nf ground, was afraid to proceed ... until the
property had been classified as an exclusive manufacturing
distriet."34 The City Council later reponed that "at least one
industry with international connections has come to Berkeley
because of the protection furnished under our zone law. "35
The first zoned district created in Berkeley was the single·family
residence restriction applied to Elmwood Park. Other zoning
actions by the City Council in response to property Owner
petitions included one which required two Japanese laundries, one
Chinese laundry, and a six·horse stable 10 vacate an older
apartment area in the ceOler of town. and another that created a
restricted residence district in order to prevent a "negro dance
hall" from locating "on a prominent co£Ocr."16 That the focus of
Berkeley's zoning law should be on racial restrictions is not
surprising given the anti-Chinese origins of zoning in California.]7
Physical design and building restrictions werc a vital aspect of
subdivision planning, as Duncan McDuffie frequently articulalcd,
but "wise usc of restrielions" by subdivision developers also
involved racial exclusion. In 1925 and 1926 the California Real
Estate magazine reported that one of the most popular examples
of "service rendered" by a local real cstate board "to members
and to thc community at large" was the attempt by the Berkeley
Realty Board, a strong supporter of city planning and zoning, "to
organize a district of some twenty blocks under the covenant plan
as protel1ion against invasion of egroes and Asiatics." The
18
Urban Land Developers, Weiss
magazine stated that reaction in Berkeley to the realty board's
.
action "has been one of commendat,on an pra'se.
d . "38
;ril!" .I11I3f' .rJlumlr JlmjsWw f.r.o.DJ .Berkelgv's initial zonin,g
ordinance was any classification fnr eommerc,al use d'stncts. The
Berkeley Civic Art Commission, city attnrney, and others ~ebated
the question nf whether or not they le&:U!y could separate d,fferent
forms of business and commerctal use JO ord~r to I?rotect estab-
lished business and retail centers from certam nUlsances.. The
City Council decided tbat. under the po~ce power, accordlng.to
lhe current state of Califnrnia court dCClslons, commercial dIStrict
restrictions would nnt he legally valid. Consequently, the Be~kel~y
zoning law only contained residential and industnal dl~tnct
c1a.<sifications, with all commercial. property left 10 an unrestricted
"no man's land."39 This situallon was qUlckly remed,ed In
October 1916 when the City Council amended the landmark
loning ordinance passed just seven m0!lths earher. At the
recommendation of the Civic Art Cnmrruss,on, the new amended
law created 27 different classifications, including several categories
of commercial use districts. 40
By 1916, Berkeley thus attained the distinctinn of having the
most complicated use·znning law In the UOIted States, although
ew York City's height and area formulas added yet another ~orm
of complexity to zoning. Berkeley's compllcated system. eXisted
mostly on paper, however, because under the p,ecemeal
arrangement of ercating districts by petlt,on of the property
owners, only f,ve percent of Berkeley's land area was zon 7d 10 the
firsl fnur years of the law, and all but nne of these d,strlcts were
for single-family residential use. 4 ' In 1920 the C,ty. Cn~ncil
passed a new streamlined nrdinance w,th Just seven c1asslficatlO!,s,
and proceeded to zone the entire city directly, rather than walling
for district petitions 42
Duncan McDuffie's efforts to create a zoning law for ~erkeley
werc greatly aided by lhe secretary and consultant to the ClVIC. Art
Commission, Charles Henry Cheney. Cheney, a y?ung archItect
nf the Beaux Arts school and son of Berkeley.s preemment
commercial realtor, Warren Cheney, was an e~ergel1.c advocate of
city planning. His work on behalf of Be.rkeley S zorung law est~b­
lished him as a majnr consultant on zonlOg throughout the PaCific
Coast.43 After Berkeley's 1916 ordinance took e.ffect, Cheney and
McDuffie both turned their attention to a b,gger proJect-tbe
zoning of San Francisco. 44
Conclusion
The story of concerned homenwners in Berkeley's Elmwood
Park neighborhood in 1915 is typical '!fthe contemporary vIew of
the historic use of zoning laws. What IS less well·known, however,
19
Berkeley Planning Journal
without arousing great community Oppos'llon. Berkeley Mayor
Samuel C. Irving, who was also president of the Chamber of
Commerce and owner of a multinational manufacturinjl
corporation, was determined that the city's railroad and
waterfron' land should be developed for industrial purposes free
from protests and lawsuits by nearby working-class residents.
Under Berkeley's 1916 zoning law two different industrial district
classifications were created, one "in which only unobnoxious
factories will be allowed and another c1assif'eation in which
obnoxious as well as unobnoxious factories will be allowed,,32
Berkeley's zoning law was primarily designed to protect the
developers and owners of large and expensive homes on the east
side of the city, and the developers and owners of faelories and
railroad property on the west side. Requests for protective
restrictions that would benefit residents of "old and dilapidated"
houses in the west side industrial areas were rejccted by the
Berkeley City Council in hopes that "the residences within that
zone would gradually be abandoned, and the district would
become a purely manufacturing locality.,,]3 One of the earliest
petitions acted upon by the City Council created an industrial
district for Cutter Laboratories: "a new manufacturing plant
expecting to invest a large sum of money on buildings covering
about two acres nf ground, was afraid to proceed ... until the
property had been classified as an exclusive manufacturing
distriet."34 The City Council later reponed that "at least one
industry with international connections has come to Berkeley
because of the protection furnished under our zone law. "35
The first zoned district created in Berkeley was the single·family
residence restriction applied to Elmwood Park. Other zoning
actions by the City Council in response to property Owner
petitions included one which required two Japanese laundries, one
Chinese laundry, and a six·horse stable 10 vacate an older
apartment area in the ceOler of town. and another that created a
restricted residence district in order to prevent a "negro dance
hall" from locating "on a prominent co£Ocr."16 That the focus of
Berkeley's zoning law should be on racial restrictions is not
surprising given the anti-Chinese origins of zoning in California.]7
Physical design and building restrictions werc a vital aspect of
subdivision planning, as Duncan McDuffie frequently articulalcd,
but "wise usc of restrielions" by subdivision developers also
involved racial exclusion. In 1925 and 1926 the California Real
Estate magazine reported that one of the most popular examples
of "service rendered" by a local real cstate board "to members
and to thc community at large" was the attempt by the Berkeley
Realty Board, a strong supporter of city planning and zoning, "to
organize a district of some twenty blocks under the covenant plan
as protel1ion against invasion of egroes and Asiatics." The
18
Urban Land Developers, Weiss
magazine stated that reaction in Berkeley to the realty board's
.
action "has been one of commendat,on an pra'se.
d . "38
;ril!" .I11I3f' .rJlumlr JlmjsWw f.r.o.DJ .Berkelgv's initial zonin,g
ordinance was any classification fnr eommerc,al use d'stncts. The
Berkeley Civic Art Commission, city attnrney, and others ~ebated
the question nf whether or not they le&:U!y could separate d,fferent
forms of business and commerctal use JO ord~r to I?rotect estab-
lished business and retail centers from certam nUlsances.. The
City Council decided tbat. under the po~ce power, accordlng.to
lhe current state of Califnrnia court dCClslons, commercial dIStrict
restrictions would nnt he legally valid. Consequently, the Be~kel~y
zoning law only contained residential and industnal dl~tnct
c1a.<sifications, with all commercial. property left 10 an unrestricted
"no man's land."39 This situallon was qUlckly remed,ed In
October 1916 when the City Council amended the landmark
loning ordinance passed just seven m0!lths earher. At the
recommendation of the Civic Art Cnmrruss,on, the new amended
law created 27 different classifications, including several categories
of commercial use districts. 40
By 1916, Berkeley thus attained the distinctinn of having the
most complicated use·znning law In the UOIted States, although
ew York City's height and area formulas added yet another ~orm
of complexity to zoning. Berkeley's compllcated system. eXisted
mostly on paper, however, because under the p,ecemeal
arrangement of ercating districts by petlt,on of the property
owners, only f,ve percent of Berkeley's land area was zon 7d 10 the
firsl fnur years of the law, and all but nne of these d,strlcts were
for single-family residential use. 4 ' In 1920 the C,ty. Cn~ncil
passed a new streamlined nrdinance w,th Just seven c1asslficatlO!,s,
and proceeded to zone the entire city directly, rather than walling
for district petitions 42
Duncan McDuffie's efforts to create a zoning law for ~erkeley
werc greatly aided by lhe secretary and consultant to the ClVIC. Art
Commission, Charles Henry Cheney. Cheney, a y?ung archItect
nf the Beaux Arts school and son of Berkeley.s preemment
commercial realtor, Warren Cheney, was an e~ergel1.c advocate of
city planning. His work on behalf of Be.rkeley S zorung law est~b­
lished him as a majnr consultant on zonlOg throughout the PaCific
Coast.43 After Berkeley's 1916 ordinance took e.ffect, Cheney and
McDuffie both turned their attention to a b,gger proJect-tbe
zoning of San Francisco. 44
Conclusion
The story of concerned homenwners in Berkeley's Elmwood
Park neighborhood in 1915 is typical '!fthe contemporary vIew of
the historic use of zoning laws. What IS less well·known, however,
19
 Berkeley PlannJng Journal
is the role of large residential subdividers like Duncan McDuffie in
creating tbe first zoning laws and applying these laws to districts
even before any homeowners resided there. The need for political
coalitions and the conlliet between different propeny owners and
users demonstrates tbe difficulty and frustralion real estate
developers eneounlered in the' zoning process. Today's
widespread debate over Ihe appropriate form and scope of private
and public land-use regulations, while cenainly more widespread
and conlroversial loday, can trace its roots back to the very
beginnings of zoning in the firsl Ihree decades of tbe twentieth
century.
NOTES
I. Many of the ideas in thJS paper are drawn from my forthcoming
book, The Rise of the Community BUilders.- 1 he American Real
Eslate Induslry and Urban Land Planninx (New York: Columbia
University Press. 1987), Columbia History of Urban Life, Kenneth
T. Jackson, General Editor.
2. Harrison R. Baker. "SubdiVision PraclIces:' In Harnson R. Baker,
ed., Subdil'ision Principles and PraCIlL"ES (Los Angeles: California
Real Estate Association, 1936), p. 7.
3. On institutional changes In real estate development and finance,
see The Rise of the lommunltJ' Budders, op. cil.. Chapter Two.
4. Herbert U. Nelson, "How Good is Zoning," I/eadlines. 14. 37,
September 15, 1947 (Chicago: National AssnciaLinn of Real Estate
Boards, 1947), p. t.
The standard mterpretation of zoning fits Herbert U. Ndson's
statement. See Seymour I. Toll, Lolled American (New York:
Grossman, 1969); John Ddarnns. Land-Use Comrols In the United
Stares (Cambndge: MIT Press. (969); Richard F. Babmek, The
Zonin.r( Game, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966);
Constance Perin. £~·efl'thlng In lis Place (PrInceton: PrincetOn
University Press. 1977).
5. On lhe cruCial imponance of deed restrictions as the basic tool of
private planning and the mnovatlve precedent for public
regulation. see Helen C. Monchow, The Use of need Reslrlcnons ill
Subdll'lflOn J)(?1'PIOPHUWI (Chic-ago: Inslilule for Research in Land
Economics and Public VIIIllIes. /928); and The Rm' of In.
Commulli{l' Builders. 0)) oJ. C.haplrf J'bltt.
20
Urban Lnnd Develope",. Weiss
6. For example. urban planncr Charles H. Cheney. in a letter de-
scribing the detd rc'\tnctions or the famous Palos Verdes Estates
subdivision he designed wuh Frcdcric.:k Law Olmsted. Jr., says.
"The type of prou:CIl\'e rcsLrictions and the high class scheme of
la}out which we ha\e provided tt'nd'\ to guide and autom~tI~lIy
regulale the class of citizens who arc settling ~cr.e. The rcsL.m::uons
prohibit occupation of land by Negroes or A'\lallcs. The mlOlmurn
cost of housc re~trictions tends 10 group the people of more or Ics'ii
like income togcther as far as iL is reasonable and advisable to do
so," QUOted In Robert Fogelson. The I'ragmented MetropolIS: Los
.Inge/es. /8511-/930 (Cambndge: Harvard University Press. 1%7).
p. 3:!4 footl1ote.
Un race restrictions. 5Ce Clemcnl E, Vose. Caucaswns Onl\'
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1959):
Thomas L. Phil pUll. The Slum and rill' (;Iwlto (New York: Oxford
UnlVcrsiL) Press. 1975): lIerman H. Long and Charles S. Johnson.
People rs. J'ropertl' ( ashville: Fisk Uni\'crsil)' Press. 1947);
Charles Ahrams. Forbidden NelghlH)fS (New York: Harper
Brothers. (955).
7 Barbara J. Flint. "Zonmg and Residential Segregation: A Social
and Physical IhSlory. 1910-1940... unpublished Ph.D. dissertallon.
Departmen1 of History. Uni\'ersI1Y of Chicago. 1977. p. 215. On
the national debate about "o\'crLOning" set' also Harland
Bartholomew. L'rban Land l.'ses. Volumc IV. Harvard City
PlannlOg Studies (Cambndge: Harvard University ,Pre.ss. ~932):
Coleman Woodbury. "Thr Size of Retail BUSiness Dlstncts III the
Chicago Metropolitan Region," and Orman S. Fink and C?leman
Woodbury. "Area Reqlllrements or Cities In 1he Regton of
Chicago," In Journal (~r Land and Publte Uulill' Economics, 4: I,
February 192R, and 4:3. Augusl 192R: Gordon Whitnall. "Supply
and Demand in BUSiness Zoning." The Commullllv Bwlder. l, 3,
February 1928: George leRoy Schmut7. "Economic Effects. of
Zoning:' and Harry H. Culvtr... -\ Realtor's Viewpoint on Zoning,
Pn:senl and Future," 10 W.L. Pollard. ed.. "Zoning in lhe United
States," .-Innals of tht· American Academl' t~r Political alld Socl~1
SCIence. 155. II. May 1931: George H. Coffin. Jr.. Lonll1g and liS
Relation to PropertJ' I'alues (Los Angeles: California R.eal Estate
Associat1on, 1936): Prtx'eedi'lgs ofth~ NatIOnal Zonwg (o'{fer~nce,
Cblcago, Dc<crnber 12-14. 1937 (Washin&ton. D.C-: U.S. Naltonal
Rl'SOurces Committee, 1938); Weiss. The Rise of the CommunllY
But/ders. op. ell.. Chapter Four.
00 tb~ NJ." Land Phmning DIVIsion. see Tne Rise of Ihp
Commum"tl' Bu.dders, op. clf.. Chapter Six.
9. WPA Writers' I'ro&rarn. Oert<efey: 7lie hrsf S'evenlj,.fii'e t'Mr1
!lJi'r.iJ:)(x TJlt' OJ))j(K J'/m. JJ~J); AI1JJUf )jjJrrj~ 01)' )ffJllIl,{ff
Gm'f'rnmenf in Bnk(,/f'v (C'hi<."ago: Public Administration Service,
21
 Berkeley PlannJng Journal
is the role of large residential subdividers like Duncan McDuffie in
creating tbe first zoning laws and applying these laws to districts
even before any homeowners resided there. The need for political
coalitions and the conlliet between different propeny owners and
users demonstrates tbe difficulty and frustralion real estate
developers eneounlered in the' zoning process. Today's
widespread debate over Ihe appropriate form and scope of private
and public land-use regulations, while cenainly more widespread
and conlroversial loday, can trace its roots back to the very
beginnings of zoning in the firsl Ihree decades of tbe twentieth
century.
NOTES
I. Many of the ideas in thJS paper are drawn from my forthcoming
book, The Rise of the Community BUilders.- 1 he American Real
Eslate Induslry and Urban Land Planninx (New York: Columbia
University Press. 1987), Columbia History of Urban Life, Kenneth
T. Jackson, General Editor.
2. Harrison R. Baker. "SubdiVision PraclIces:' In Harnson R. Baker,
ed., Subdil'ision Principles and PraCIlL"ES (Los Angeles: California
Real Estate Association, 1936), p. 7.
3. On institutional changes In real estate development and finance,
see The Rise of the lommunltJ' Budders, op. cil.. Chapter Two.
4. Herbert U. Nelson, "How Good is Zoning," I/eadlines. 14. 37,
September 15, 1947 (Chicago: National AssnciaLinn of Real Estate
Boards, 1947), p. t.
The standard mterpretation of zoning fits Herbert U. Ndson's
statement. See Seymour I. Toll, Lolled American (New York:
Grossman, 1969); John Ddarnns. Land-Use Comrols In the United
Stares (Cambndge: MIT Press. (969); Richard F. Babmek, The
Zonin.r( Game, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966);
Constance Perin. £~·efl'thlng In lis Place (PrInceton: PrincetOn
University Press. 1977).
5. On lhe cruCial imponance of deed restrictions as the basic tool of
private planning and the mnovatlve precedent for public
regulation. see Helen C. Monchow, The Use of need Reslrlcnons ill
Subdll'lflOn J)(?1'PIOPHUWI (Chic-ago: Inslilule for Research in Land
Economics and Public VIIIllIes. /928); and The Rm' of In.
Commulli{l' Builders. 0)) oJ. C.haplrf J'bltt.
20
Urban Lnnd Develope",. Weiss
6. For example. urban planncr Charles H. Cheney. in a letter de-
scribing the detd rc'\tnctions or the famous Palos Verdes Estates
subdivision he designed wuh Frcdcric.:k Law Olmsted. Jr., says.
"The type of prou:CIl\'e rcsLrictions and the high class scheme of
la}out which we ha\e provided tt'nd'\ to guide and autom~tI~lIy
regulale the class of citizens who arc settling ~cr.e. The rcsL.m::uons
prohibit occupation of land by Negroes or A'\lallcs. The mlOlmurn
cost of housc re~trictions tends 10 group the people of more or Ics'ii
like income togcther as far as iL is reasonable and advisable to do
so," QUOted In Robert Fogelson. The I'ragmented MetropolIS: Los
.Inge/es. /8511-/930 (Cambndge: Harvard University Press. 1%7).
p. 3:!4 footl1ote.
Un race restrictions. 5Ce Clemcnl E, Vose. Caucaswns Onl\'
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1959):
Thomas L. Phil pUll. The Slum and rill' (;Iwlto (New York: Oxford
UnlVcrsiL) Press. 1975): lIerman H. Long and Charles S. Johnson.
People rs. J'ropertl' ( ashville: Fisk Uni\'crsil)' Press. 1947);
Charles Ahrams. Forbidden NelghlH)fS (New York: Harper
Brothers. (955).
7 Barbara J. Flint. "Zonmg and Residential Segregation: A Social
and Physical IhSlory. 1910-1940... unpublished Ph.D. dissertallon.
Departmen1 of History. Uni\'ersI1Y of Chicago. 1977. p. 215. On
the national debate about "o\'crLOning" set' also Harland
Bartholomew. L'rban Land l.'ses. Volumc IV. Harvard City
PlannlOg Studies (Cambndge: Harvard University ,Pre.ss. ~932):
Coleman Woodbury. "Thr Size of Retail BUSiness Dlstncts III the
Chicago Metropolitan Region," and Orman S. Fink and C?leman
Woodbury. "Area Reqlllrements or Cities In 1he Regton of
Chicago," In Journal (~r Land and Publte Uulill' Economics, 4: I,
February 192R, and 4:3. Augusl 192R: Gordon Whitnall. "Supply
and Demand in BUSiness Zoning." The Commullllv Bwlder. l, 3,
February 1928: George leRoy Schmut7. "Economic Effects. of
Zoning:' and Harry H. Culvtr... -\ Realtor's Viewpoint on Zoning,
Pn:senl and Future," 10 W.L. Pollard. ed.. "Zoning in lhe United
States," .-Innals of tht· American Academl' t~r Political alld Socl~1
SCIence. 155. II. May 1931: George H. Coffin. Jr.. Lonll1g and liS
Relation to PropertJ' I'alues (Los Angeles: California R.eal Estate
Associat1on, 1936): Prtx'eedi'lgs ofth~ NatIOnal Zonwg (o'{fer~nce,
Cblcago, Dc<crnber 12-14. 1937 (Washin&ton. D.C-: U.S. Naltonal
Rl'SOurces Committee, 1938); Weiss. The Rise of the CommunllY
But/ders. op. ell.. Chapter Four.
00 tb~ NJ." Land Phmning DIVIsion. see Tne Rise of Ihp
Commum"tl' Bu.dders, op. clf.. Chapter Six.
9. WPA Writers' I'ro&rarn. Oert<efey: 7lie hrsf S'evenlj,.fii'e t'Mr1
!lJi'r.iJ:)(x TJlt' OJ))j(K J'/m. JJ~J); AI1JJUf )jjJrrj~ 01)' )ffJllIl,{ff
Gm'f'rnmenf in Bnk(,/f'v (C'hi<."ago: Public Administration Service,
21
Berkeley PlanninK .Journal
1940); Mel Scott. The San Francl.\'l.'o Bay Area (Berkelcy and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1959); James E. Vance,
Jr., (;eoxraphv and Urban F.volu"on In thi' San FrancIsco Bay Area
(University of California. Berkeley: Jnstitute of Governmental
Studies. 1964): Marybeth Branaman. .(jrowth of lire San Frallcisco
SaJ' Area Urban Core (Uni\'c~ily of California. Berkeley: Bureau
of Busmess and Economic Research, 1956).
10. Warren Cheney. "Commercial Berkeley:' Sunsel Magaline.
November 1906. p. 74: WPA. op. CIt. p. 84.
1 I. Charles II. Cheney. "ZonlOg 10 Practice," Proceedillgs of the
Elf'l'enth NatlOnal Conference on City Planmng (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1919). p. 171: Berkeley City Planning
CommiSSion (CiVIC An Commission) I'roposed ComprC'hrnsh'(!
Zone Ordinance lor Ihe ('ill' of Berke/Pl'. California, May 6, 1919,
p. 4.: Ctty planner Ernest P. Goodrich, in his summary report on
the study by the C''Cr Committee on Land SubdiVISIOn, called
Berkele) "a typical high class residence town". Sec Proceedings uf
the Seventh .Nallonal Conftrenu on ('n,v Plann;ng (Cambridge:
Harvard University Pres'\, 1915) p. 46.
12. Real F.slate. 111. 5, '\pnl 1914. p. 128: Caltfomra Real t'srate. VIII,
8. May 1928. p. 61: Califimua Real E"la/" IX, 4. January 1929. p.
58: The San FranCISCo Real Estate Board called Duncan McDuffie
"one of the foremost subdivision opcrdtors on the PaCific Coast."
See Sail Frallcisco Real Estate Boord Bulle/Ill. I. 2. October 1915.
p.2.
13. WPA, op. CIt, p. 120. fhe- Olher two large subdivisions were
Northbrac and Thousand Ouks.
14. Calijomia Real Estale VII. I. October 1926. p. 16: VII. 7. April
1927. p. 13: Callfomia Real Estate DirC'clOl:II-Bullelin (Sacramento:
Calif"mia State Printing Office. 1920) I. I. April I. 1920. pp. 15,
240: Duncan McDuffie used the 1913 California Tree Planting and
Parking Dlstrtct Act as a means of leVying special assessments to
develop nne of his biggest subdivisions. Northbrae. Sec Charles
Henry Cheney. Procedure lo" Zoning or Dis/ricling Cities (San
FranCISCo: Cahfornt3 Conference on City Planning. September.
1917). p. 15 (footnote). In 19JO the American Scenic and Historic
Preservation Society awarded Duncan McDuffie a national medal
for haVing "greatly advanced the cause of scentC preservauon:-
Culiforma Rf'al F..wau'. X, -. February 1910. p. 34. Duncan
McDuffie was also the founding Vice-President in 1914 of the
California Conference on ellY l'lannlng. See lran.socllons of the
Commoflll'ealih Club or Calirvmia. IX. 14. January 1915. PP.· 746-
8: l'oC/ne .l1uIIlC/palities. 18. 10. October 1914. pp. 503. 511. 513-
15, Duncan McDuffie wa'\ also a founding member in 1914 of the
City Planning Committee of the ational Associauon of Real
[stal~ Hoards. See The Rise of the (·ommUn11.r Budders. op. cil..
22
Lrbon Land De1·elopt'rs. Weiss
Chaple-r l'hrc('.
15. CalUorlllo Ueal F.Slate V, 8. May 1915, pp. 20, 40: Duncan
McDufflc. "The Planning of Cities:' floclfir HUflIl·fpallth'::.. 29. 11.
December 1915. pp. 618-19: "McDuffie Lectures on Needs of
Cit) " H('r~f'!et· Dail!' Ga=ettc. March 25. 1914. p 6.
16. Duncan McDuffie. "Cit) Planning in Berkeley." lJerkeleJ' 01'1('
Hul/e/1II IV. 5. March 15. 1916. pp. 106-07: Werner Hegemann.
Repun on a CliP f'lon for ,hi' J/uniclpalwes of Oakland and
Herkeler (the Cit) Club and Civic An CommiSSion of Rerkcley and
the Chamber of Commerce and Commercial Club of Oakland.
1915): McDuffie was a member of the City Planning Committee of
the Rerkelq (,il) Club. On the beginnings of a real cstalc
reC{.'S~ion in Berkele)' in 1914. see RpaJ F..'itute. ilL II. October
1914. p. 311.
17, J.R. Douglas. "The City Planning Mo\'ement In Berkele\'."
lJerke/Pl' nne Bulleti" V. I. August 22. 1916. p. 4: Fran~ ~D.
Slringham. ··Cit)' Plannmg Progress in Berkeley." The .lrchitf!C1 and
LlIgllleer or Caitronlla 52. 3. June 1918.
18. Duncan McDuffie. March 15. 1916. op. cit.. p. 106. As earl) as
March 24, 191..J. McDuffie delivered a Iccture a1 the University of
California on "The De\'elopment of Residencc Districts under
Wist' Re"lrlCllon,\." Sec Ber/..eley Ch'ic Bulll'ti" II. H. March 14.
1914. p. 2.
19. Ibid" pp. 115-0.
20. IIl1d.. p. 117.
21. IIl1d.. p. I 16.
22. IIl1d.. p. 116.
n Ihid.. p. 112.
24 Charles Henry Cheney. ··The Necessity for a Zone Ordinance in
Berkeley." Berke/c." Ol'/e BIII/eltll III. 10. May 18. 1915. p. 165:
Duncan McDuffie, ··A Practical Application of the Zone
Ordinance:' Berkele)' Civic BullclIt! v. I. August 22, 1916, pp.
10..17. Charles Henry Cheney. "Oistricting Progress and Procedure
10 California." Proceedmgs f~r Ihe Ni1llh Not;o"al Conference on
0'" Plallmlll( (New Ynrk: Douglas C. McMurtrie. 1917) pp. 186-
7: Paclfte ,\[I/Iucipalities. 32. 3. March 1918, p. 136; the origmal
Elmwood Park tracts were subdivided by Senator Arthur H. Brced,
Prclloidcnt pro tern of the Cahfomia Senate and, like McDuffie. a
promment rt:altor and community builder, See Berkeley City
Fngincer's ufficc. Elmwood Park tract maps.
25 B.n.M. Greene. "Legal Aspetts of the Zone Ordinanc-c." Berkeley
BIII/Ctill V. I, August 22. 1916. p. 6.
01'/('
23
Berkeley PlanninK .Journal
1940); Mel Scott. The San Francl.\'l.'o Bay Area (Berkelcy and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1959); James E. Vance,
Jr., (;eoxraphv and Urban F.volu"on In thi' San FrancIsco Bay Area
(University of California. Berkeley: Jnstitute of Governmental
Studies. 1964): Marybeth Branaman. .(jrowth of lire San Frallcisco
SaJ' Area Urban Core (Uni\'c~ily of California. Berkeley: Bureau
of Busmess and Economic Research, 1956).
10. Warren Cheney. "Commercial Berkeley:' Sunsel Magaline.
November 1906. p. 74: WPA. op. CIt. p. 84.
1 I. Charles II. Cheney. "ZonlOg 10 Practice," Proceedillgs of the
Elf'l'enth NatlOnal Conference on City Planmng (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1919). p. 171: Berkeley City Planning
CommiSSion (CiVIC An Commission) I'roposed ComprC'hrnsh'(!
Zone Ordinance lor Ihe ('ill' of Berke/Pl'. California, May 6, 1919,
p. 4.: Ctty planner Ernest P. Goodrich, in his summary report on
the study by the C''Cr Committee on Land SubdiVISIOn, called
Berkele) "a typical high class residence town". Sec Proceedings uf
the Seventh .Nallonal Conftrenu on ('n,v Plann;ng (Cambridge:
Harvard University Pres'\, 1915) p. 46.
12. Real F.slate. 111. 5, '\pnl 1914. p. 128: Caltfomra Real t'srate. VIII,
8. May 1928. p. 61: Califimua Real E"la/" IX, 4. January 1929. p.
58: The San FranCISCo Real Estate Board called Duncan McDuffie
"one of the foremost subdivision opcrdtors on the PaCific Coast."
See Sail Frallcisco Real Estate Boord Bulle/Ill. I. 2. October 1915.
p.2.
13. WPA, op. CIt, p. 120. fhe- Olher two large subdivisions were
Northbrac and Thousand Ouks.
14. Calijomia Real Estale VII. I. October 1926. p. 16: VII. 7. April
1927. p. 13: Callfomia Real Estate DirC'clOl:II-Bullelin (Sacramento:
Calif"mia State Printing Office. 1920) I. I. April I. 1920. pp. 15,
240: Duncan McDuffie used the 1913 California Tree Planting and
Parking Dlstrtct Act as a means of leVying special assessments to
develop nne of his biggest subdivisions. Northbrae. Sec Charles
Henry Cheney. Procedure lo" Zoning or Dis/ricling Cities (San
FranCISCo: Cahfornt3 Conference on City Planning. September.
1917). p. 15 (footnote). In 19JO the American Scenic and Historic
Preservation Society awarded Duncan McDuffie a national medal
for haVing "greatly advanced the cause of scentC preservauon:-
Culiforma Rf'al F..wau'. X, -. February 1910. p. 34. Duncan
McDuffie was also the founding Vice-President in 1914 of the
California Conference on ellY l'lannlng. See lran.socllons of the
Commoflll'ealih Club or Calirvmia. IX. 14. January 1915. PP.· 746-
8: l'oC/ne .l1uIIlC/palities. 18. 10. October 1914. pp. 503. 511. 513-
15, Duncan McDuffie wa'\ also a founding member in 1914 of the
City Planning Committee of the ational Associauon of Real
[stal~ Hoards. See The Rise of the (·ommUn11.r Budders. op. cil..
22
Lrbon Land De1·elopt'rs. Weiss
Chaple-r l'hrc('.
15. CalUorlllo Ueal F.Slate V, 8. May 1915, pp. 20, 40: Duncan
McDufflc. "The Planning of Cities:' floclfir HUflIl·fpallth'::.. 29. 11.
December 1915. pp. 618-19: "McDuffie Lectures on Needs of
Cit) " H('r~f'!et· Dail!' Ga=ettc. March 25. 1914. p 6.
16. Duncan McDuffie. "Cit) Planning in Berkeley." lJerkeleJ' 01'1('
Hul/e/1II IV. 5. March 15. 1916. pp. 106-07: Werner Hegemann.
Repun on a CliP f'lon for ,hi' J/uniclpalwes of Oakland and
Herkeler (the Cit) Club and Civic An CommiSSion of Rerkcley and
the Chamber of Commerce and Commercial Club of Oakland.
1915): McDuffie was a member of the City Planning Committee of
the Rerkelq (,il) Club. On the beginnings of a real cstalc
reC{.'S~ion in Berkele)' in 1914. see RpaJ F..'itute. ilL II. October
1914. p. 311.
17, J.R. Douglas. "The City Planning Mo\'ement In Berkele\'."
lJerke/Pl' nne Bulleti" V. I. August 22. 1916. p. 4: Fran~ ~D.
Slringham. ··Cit)' Plannmg Progress in Berkeley." The .lrchitf!C1 and
LlIgllleer or Caitronlla 52. 3. June 1918.
18. Duncan McDuffie. March 15. 1916. op. cit.. p. 106. As earl) as
March 24, 191..J. McDuffie delivered a Iccture a1 the University of
California on "The De\'elopment of Residencc Districts under
Wist' Re"lrlCllon,\." Sec Ber/..eley Ch'ic Bulll'ti" II. H. March 14.
1914. p. 2.
19. Ibid" pp. 115-0.
20. IIl1d.. p. 117.
21. IIl1d.. p. I 16.
22. IIl1d.. p. 116.
n Ihid.. p. 112.
24 Charles Henry Cheney. ··The Necessity for a Zone Ordinance in
Berkeley." Berke/c." Ol'/e BIII/eltll III. 10. May 18. 1915. p. 165:
Duncan McDuffie, ··A Practical Application of the Zone
Ordinance:' Berkele)' Civic BullclIt! v. I. August 22, 1916, pp.
10..17. Charles Henry Cheney. "Oistricting Progress and Procedure
10 California." Proceedmgs f~r Ihe Ni1llh Not;o"al Conference on
0'" Plallmlll( (New Ynrk: Douglas C. McMurtrie. 1917) pp. 186-
7: Paclfte ,\[I/Iucipalities. 32. 3. March 1918, p. 136; the origmal
Elmwood Park tracts were subdivided by Senator Arthur H. Brced,
Prclloidcnt pro tern of the Cahfomia Senate and, like McDuffie. a
promment rt:altor and community builder, See Berkeley City
Fngincer's ufficc. Elmwood Park tract maps.
25 B.n.M. Greene. "Legal Aspetts of the Zone Ordinanc-c." Berkeley
BIII/Ctill V. I, August 22. 1916. p. 6.
01'/('
23
 Urbllll Land Developers. Weiss
Berkeley PlanninR Journal

42. Berkeley eily Ordinance Number 666 N.S., June I, 1920. On

26. Duncan McDuffie. August 22. 1916. op. e'I.• p. 13. Berkeley realtors promoting homeownership at Ihis time, see
27. Berkclcy Cil) Ordinance Number 526 N.S., Junc 19. 1917. On Co/iforilla Rpal Eslate, 11. 2. November 1921, p. 17.
Nonhbrae, see Real F.stalP.1I1. 7, June 1914. p. 182. 43. On Charles Cheney's reputation as a city planner, see the special
28. Berkeley Cny Urdlnance Numher 452 N.S., March 10. 1916. issue of The ArchilC'l't and F.nglneer of California 52,3, June, 1918;
see 31so 7'h~ Rise of the Community BUIlders, op. cit.. Chaplers
29. On the 190K Los Angeles 70ning law. sec The Rise of the Commu- Four and Five; Mel SCott, op. CII.; and Carl Abbott. Portland:
m!.,' But/ders, op. en., Chapter Four. PlannillR. Politics. and Growth ill a 1'wenl1l'lh·Century City
30. "Industrial Development in Berkeley." Berkeley Ctric Bultelln III. (Loncoln; University of Nebraska Press, 1983). Charles Cheney's
10, May 18. 1915. pp. 167-173; Charles lIenr)' Chcney. CCCP. father, Wa.rren Cheney, was a prominent member of both the
1917. op. CIt.. p. 4 (foolnole). The Berkeley Manufacturer's Berkeley Realty Board and the Califorma Real EslBle Associalion
ASSOCiation represented 20 large industrial timls with factories (CREA). See the Califomia Real Estate Directory-Bulletill II, 2,
hx:,atcd in ""est Berkeley. Ocloher 15. 1921. p. 5 and p. 21, and California Real F.slale, I, 6,
April 1921, p. 10.
3 I. B.J. Bilher, op. ("1.. p. 168.
44. On San Francisco, see my forthcoming article to be published in an
32. B.n.M. Greene. up. cU.. p. 9.
hlsloncal journal.
3J. R.J. Rilher. up. CII.. p. 168.
34. Charles Henr) (,hcney (NCCP) 1917. op. ClI.. p. 189. Rerkeley
Cil) Ordinance Number 514 .S.. Apnl 27, 1917. created an
"exclusive obnOXIOUs indu'\trial district" for Cutter laboratOries.
See also remarks hy Berkeley Cit) Attorney Frank 0. Stringham in
Proceedings of Ihe Ninth Sallollal Con(erent'p on eil!' Planning.
1917. op. cn., p. 224.
35. Cited In Edward Glass... <\ Non.Tcchnkal Discussion of the City
Planning Movement." Pacific MUlIidpalities 36. 3, March 1922. p.
86.
36. Charles Henry Chcney. 1917. op. ('II. pp. IR7-90. The Berkeley
City Council passed a I<lW rcquirinl!f, all laundries in r.:sidence areas
to vacale wilhill one year, restnctmg theIr locallon I() ccrlain
"Laundry Distncts". Set' Uerkcley City Ordinance Number 575
N.S.• May 31. 191R.
37. On the ami-oriental origins of loning in Cahfornla. see \V.L.
Pollard, "Outline of the Law of Zonmg In the United Stales." and
Gordon WhilnaJi. ""History of lonlng," in W.L. Pollard. cd.. op.
cit.: Paul Ong. "An Ethnic Trade: The Chm~se Laundnes In Early
Cahfor0l3.·· IIII' Journal (~r F.lhmt' Swdw\. 8. 4. Winlcr 1981.
38. ("altfimua Rt>al F.stutP VI. 5. Fchrual). 1926, p. 45; VII. I, October
1926. p. 60.
39. B.D.M. Greene. op. cil.. pp. 8-9.
40. Belkele~ Cil) Ordinance Number 4 5 N.S.. OClober 31. 1916.
41. Louis Bartlett. "The Importance or Zoning a Municipality:' PacifIc
IJlllllcipa/llies 34. 3. March. 1920. p. 104. Banlett was Mayor of
Berkeley al the time.

25
24
 Urbllll Land Developers. Weiss
Berkeley PlanninR Journal

42. Berkeley eily Ordinance Number 666 N.S., June I, 1920. On

26. Duncan McDuffie. August 22. 1916. op. e'I.• p. 13. Berkeley realtors promoting homeownership at Ihis time, see
27. Berkclcy Cil) Ordinance Number 526 N.S., Junc 19. 1917. On Co/iforilla Rpal Eslate, 11. 2. November 1921, p. 17.
Nonhbrae, see Real F.stalP.1I1. 7, June 1914. p. 182. 43. On Charles Cheney's reputation as a city planner, see the special
28. Berkeley Cny Urdlnance Numher 452 N.S., March 10. 1916. issue of The ArchilC'l't and F.nglneer of California 52,3, June, 1918;
see 31so 7'h~ Rise of the Community BUIlders, op. cit.. Chaplers
29. On the 190K Los Angeles 70ning law. sec The Rise of the Commu- Four and Five; Mel SCott, op. CII.; and Carl Abbott. Portland:
m!.,' But/ders, op. en., Chapter Four. PlannillR. Politics. and Growth ill a 1'wenl1l'lh·Century City
30. "Industrial Development in Berkeley." Berkeley Ctric Bultelln III. (Loncoln; University of Nebraska Press, 1983). Charles Cheney's
10, May 18. 1915. pp. 167-173; Charles lIenr)' Chcney. CCCP. father, Wa.rren Cheney, was a prominent member of both the
1917. op. CIt.. p. 4 (foolnole). The Berkeley Manufacturer's Berkeley Realty Board and the Califorma Real EslBle Associalion
ASSOCiation represented 20 large industrial timls with factories (CREA). See the Califomia Real Estate Directory-Bulletill II, 2,
hx:,atcd in ""est Berkeley. Ocloher 15. 1921. p. 5 and p. 21, and California Real F.slale, I, 6,
April 1921, p. 10.
3 I. B.J. Bilher, op. ("1.. p. 168.
44. On San Francisco, see my forthcoming article to be published in an
32. B.n.M. Greene. up. cU.. p. 9.
hlsloncal journal.
3J. R.J. Rilher. up. CII.. p. 168.
34. Charles Henr) (,hcney (NCCP) 1917. op. ClI.. p. 189. Rerkeley
Cil) Ordinance Number 514 .S.. Apnl 27, 1917. created an
"exclusive obnOXIOUs indu'\trial district" for Cutter laboratOries.
See also remarks hy Berkeley Cit) Attorney Frank 0. Stringham in
Proceedings of Ihe Ninth Sallollal Con(erent'p on eil!' Planning.
1917. op. cn., p. 224.
35. Cited In Edward Glass... <\ Non.Tcchnkal Discussion of the City
Planning Movement." Pacific MUlIidpalities 36. 3, March 1922. p.
86.
36. Charles Henry Chcney. 1917. op. ('II. pp. IR7-90. The Berkeley
City Council passed a I<lW rcquirinl!f, all laundries in r.:sidence areas
to vacale wilhill one year, restnctmg theIr locallon I() ccrlain
"Laundry Distncts". Set' Uerkcley City Ordinance Number 575
N.S.• May 31. 191R.
37. On the ami-oriental origins of loning in Cahfornla. see \V.L.
Pollard, "Outline of the Law of Zonmg In the United Stales." and
Gordon WhilnaJi. ""History of lonlng," in W.L. Pollard. cd.. op.
cit.: Paul Ong. "An Ethnic Trade: The Chm~se Laundnes In Early
Cahfor0l3.·· IIII' Journal (~r F.lhmt' Swdw\. 8. 4. Winlcr 1981.
38. ("altfimua Rt>al F.stutP VI. 5. Fchrual). 1926, p. 45; VII. I, October
1926. p. 60.
39. B.D.M. Greene. op. cil.. pp. 8-9.
40. Belkele~ Cil) Ordinance Number 4 5 N.S.. OClober 31. 1916.
41. Louis Bartlett. "The Importance or Zoning a Municipality:' PacifIc
IJlllllcipa/llies 34. 3. March. 1920. p. 104. Banlett was Mayor of
Berkeley al the time.

25
24